Grand Jury Investigation; Appellate Jurisdiction; Whether Panel of Judges Properly
Refused to Disclose Application for Grand Jury Investigation and Order Thereon;
Whether Appellate Court had Jurisdiction Over Petition for Review of Panel's
Order Denying Request for Disclosure; Whether Appellate Court's Ruling On
Petition for Review was a Final Judgment. On the state's request, a panel
of judges appointed a grand jury to investigate whether a police officer
committed a crime when he shot and killed an individual while on duty. The state's
application for the investigation and the panel's order thereon were sealed
pursuant to General Statutes § 54-47e, and copies of the same were transmitted
to the grand jury in accordance with General Statutes § 54-47d (b). After
conducting its investigation, the grand jury found probable cause to believe
that the officer had committed a crime, and the officer was charged with manslaughter
and assault. The officer subsequently applied to the trial court for an order requiring
the state to produce its application for the grand jury investigation and the
panel's order thereon, and the state, in turn, requested that the panel
disclose such materials. The panel denied the state's request, and the officer
filed a petition for review with the Appellate Court. The panel intervened,
arguing that the Appellate Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
petition because the Investigatory Grand Jury Act makes no provision for
appellate review of its order denying the request for disclosure. The state
and the officer argued that the Appellate Court had jurisdiction over the
petition pursuant to General Statutes § 54-47g (a), which allows any person to
apply to the panel for the disclosure of any part of the "record" of a
grand jury investigation and allows any person aggrieved by an order of the
panel denying a request for disclosure to appeal to the Appellate Court by way
of a petition for review. The panel claimed that the "record" of the
grand jury investigation was limited to testimony and exhibits presented to the
grand jury and did not include the requested materials. The Appellate Court (104
Conn. App. 398) disagreed and concluded that the material was part of the
record for purposes of § 54-47g (a) and that it had jurisdiction over the petition.
It also ruled that it could not determine whether the officer was entitled to
the materials because the panel failed to conduct a hearing in accordance with §
54-47g (a) to ascertain whether the disclosure of the materials was in the "public
interest." Hence, the Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the
panel for such a hearing. The Supreme Court subsequently granted the panel's petition
for certification. On appeal, it will consider whether the Appellate Court correctly
decided that it had jurisdiction over the petition for review. If the court answers
that question in the affirmative, it will then decide whether the Appellate
Court properly determined that the materials were part of the record of the
grand jury's investigation. If it answers the latter question affirmatively,
it will consider whether the "public interest" that the Appellate
Court directed the panel to evaluate on remand refers to the policy interest in
grand jury privacy or the policy interest in public disclosure. The officer
argues, as a threshold issue, that the Supreme Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the panel's appeal on the ground that the appeal was not
taken from a final judgment.